Monday, February 19, 2007

Gathering for Worship: When Liturgy meets the Potluck?

Last week, without much fanfare, I finally received from Kelly what was meant to be first my birthday gift, then Christmas, then anniversary, and finally it's late arrival meant it was just, well, a random gift. But a good one at that. What she has been trying to get me for some time, but which has taken its time getting here due to trouble with vendors, is the new prayer book published by the Baptist Union of Great Britain in 2005. Gathering for Worship: Patterns and Prayers for the Community of Disciples is a helpful planning resource that is directed mainly towards worship and practices in the Baptist/Free Church tradition. But it also has the promise to be an ecumenically useful worship book for Christians of all traditions, and in fact it is one of the resources placed on reserve at the Duke Divinity School library for the Introduction to Christian Worship class taught by Ed Phillips (United Methodist). I have even found a favorable review by a British Roman Catholic who believes that Gathering for Worship provides complementary forms of worship and devotional practice as well as catechetical or semi-catechetical reminders of the purpose of certain ritual acts.

Actually, the main problem that this book has will not be convincing other Christians but Baptists of its usefulness. Ours is a tradition that is traditionally suspicious of traditions, especially services that are too tightly planned and which contain written prayers that some rightly fear can become merely rote delivery. However, the unintended consequences of this laudable pursuit of spiritual worship have been a diminishing of liturgics as a necessary and vital arena of sustained theological reflection, a disconnection with some historic and meaningful prayers and worship patterns, and certainly in some cases a laziness masquerading as “following the lead of the Spirit.” Gathering for Worship reflects a small but hopefully growing liturgical renewal among Baptists in order to recover, in our own particular way, worship as a carefully thought-out corporate discipline that can be imbued with multiple layers and resonances in both what is said and done. This renewal expresses itself in various ways, from the adoption of the Church Year and lectionary (at minimum among Baptists in North America we have witnessed a large-scale appropriation of the season of Advent) to litanies and responsive prayers to fuller liturgies for the Lord's Supper. It is not surprising that British Baptists, who seem to have less qualms about so-called “Catholic” practices, are leading the way with the publication of this book.

Thus like most such books Gathering for Worship has plans for acts such as Communion and Marriage and prayers for various seasons of the Church Year and various moments of spiritual meaning. Unlike most such prayer books, of course, it has a Baptist twist: the baptism rite is only for disciples who have made a conscious, verbal affirmation, there is a rite for presenting and dedicating infants, and there are various commissionings of ministers alongside ordination. The book also presents sections of prayers for occasions not marked by the Church Year, such as The Weak of Prayer for Christian Year. Unlike the Book of Common Prayer, a prime example of books with more of a so-called “catholic” or at least mainline bent, Gathering for Worship does not contain a catechism, rites for the daily office, rites for the other five “sacraments,” or any lectionaries.

Here I may hit on what I think are some of the weaknesses or deficiencies of the book. I highlight these with a caveat. Given that Baptists have tended to stick up their noses at structured liturgies, it is an accomplishment that such a service book even exists, let alone that it contains prayers for seasons of the Church Year. So these are not strong criticisms. But I do pine for the day that a Baptist prayer book does contain a daily office plan (it's Scriptural! - Psalm 55:17, among others) so that it can be useful for families, informal gatherings of disciples, and individuals in the rhythm of worship between Sundays. Providing the lectionary would also be useful for pastors and churches seeking to follow its discipline. Perhaps also because the book's continued production is contingent on its acceptance in Baptist circles – it is, after all, not required like the BCP – it only appears in one form, which is a good-sized hardback edition. A leather-bound edition would make it more flexible and so easier to use in the midst of corporate worship and a smaller edition would make it easier for personal use. But for now this problem can be answered by using the CD that provides PDF files of the entire text of Gathering for Worship.

Ultimately, Gathering for Worship is not comprehensive in the way that the BCP strives to be, and it is not as fit for personal use, either. It may be misleading to call it a “prayer book” since its beneficial use will largely be restricted to corporate worship. It is a “service book” primarily. However, in that respect it is a sure winner, providing both traditional and contemporary forms and touching on a number of theological themes and imagery. I am most excited about exploring its seven patterns for Communion, and I will describe more about them in a future post. If nothing else, let me say this as endorsement: I used Gathering for Worship to say a prayer in worship this past Sunday, and it is only the beginning of much use that I expect to make. This is a remarkable achievement on the part of the British Baptists.

Labels: ,

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Oh Mary, Don't You Weep

A wonderful old spiritual...

CHORUS:
Oh Mary, don't you weep, don't you mourn
Oh Mary, don't you weep, don't you mourn
Pharaoh's army got drown-ded
Oh Mary, don't you weep.

Moses stood on the Red Sea shore,
smotin' the water with that two-by-four
Pharaoh's army got drown-ded
Oh Mary, don't you weep.

CHORUS

If I could I surely would
stand on the rock where Moses stood
Pharaoh's army got drown-ded
Oh Mary, don't you weep.

CHORUS

Now Mary she wore three links of chain,
every link was freedom's name
Pharaoh's army got drown-ded
Oh Mary, don't you weep.

CHORUS

One of these mornings so bright and fair
I'm gonna hitch on my wings and I'll try the air
Pharaoh's army got drown-ded
Oh Mary, don't you weep.

CHORUS

When I get to heaven, gonna sing and shout
and nobody there gonna turn me out
Pharaoh's army got drown-ded
Oh Mary, don't you weep.

CHORUS

When I get to heaven, gonna put on my shoes
walk around heaven and tell the news:
Pharaoh's army got drown-ded
Oh Mary, don't you weep.

CHORUS

****
At least, this is the versification as recorded for the new Get on Board CD compilation of Underground Railroad and Civil Rights Movement songs. A ton of folk artists have recorded this song, as well as Pete Seeger and Bruce Springsteen. Dr. Amy Laura Hall played the Seeger version the first day of our ethics class, but (ssssh, don't tell her) I like this version the best!

Labels:

Thursday, February 08, 2007

New hopes for American ecumenism?

Yesterday marked the official launch of Christian Churches Together in the USA, a new ecumenical organization that will certainly compete for attention and funds with the long-established network that is the National Council of Churches USA. The NCC has had its critics over the years, whether they have theological concerns about the general direction of its ecumenical project or political concerns over its purported left-wing tendencies. The member churches of the NCC largely represent three basic groupings of churches: the old mainline churches that have lost about a third of their members over the years and are now significantly "gray" in population, certain historically African-American denominations, and many of the regional jurisdictions of the Eastern Christian churches. While various non-member churches have participated in the "program commissions" put on by the NCC, support has significantly been tepid or nonexistent from Catholics, Pentecostals and evangelicals. According to this news release, when the National Association of Evangelicals was formed it was seen as a counterweight to the NCC, and a qualification for membership in the former was disavowal of membership in the latter. However, the new CCT has enrolled in its ranks both the US Conference of Catholic Bishops as well as evangelical groups such as Free Methodists, the Evangelical Covenant Church, and the Church of God of Prophecy. Meanwhile, old NCC stalwarts such as the Episcopal Church and the Orthodox jurisdictions have jumped on board as well. The CCT promoters emphasize a desire to bring together five Christian "families" - Catholic, Mainline Protestant, Evangelical/Pentecostal, Orthodox, and Racial/Ethnic churches - for witness, worship, and social action. The organizers are particularly concerned with new initiatives for addressing poverty, which we all know (partly thanks to Bono!) is the most frequently-cited social issue in Scripture.

The most significant aspect of CCT, however, may be its intent to operate on the local level. I have expressed this concern several times in conversation with friends that ecumenism typically is seen as this macro event in which national leaders and well-read theologians get together on commissions for dialogue but then their work has no impact whatsoever on churches doing ministry in their communities. True ecumenism, if it is to take any root, must catch fire in the pews and on the streets where people worship and live. The Christian Churches Together invitation calls for establishing a network of spaces where churches and community organizations can come together in their local contexts. While I don't want ecumenists to give up their Faith and Order commissions, I do hope that the future of ecumenism can be shaped by the growing realization that just as all politics is local, so, in a sense, is all Christian living.

Labels:

Friday, February 02, 2007

Can Baptists have bishops? (Part one)

In my earlier posts on the Evangelical Baptist Church of Georgia, I stated, essentially, that I take no theological or ecclesiological exception to the appointment of a presiding bishop as an office of spiritual oversight. Certainly this should raise up howls of protests from many of my fellow Baptists. The charge may be that I am doubling back on the gains of the Reformation by calling for the re-institution of hierarchy and the promotion of “spiritual masters” (to use Bill Underwood's phrasing) who will dictate matters of faith and practice to the quivering, docile masses. It may be claimed that such an office of personal oversight violates the clear two-fold office scheme of Scripture, subverts the autonomy (I prefer the term “competence) of the local congregation under the authority and rule of Christ, and so distances a communion from Baptist heritage that the very name cannot be rightfully claimed anymore. But are any of these claims feasible? Allow me to review certain lines of evidence:


1. Scripture

Biblical scholars have known for decades that the New Testament does not present an unambiguous, clear, and unitary ecclesiology that must be merely re-presented for succeeding generations to slavishly copy. Instead, as we will be learning in detail all throughout one of my courses this semester, the portraits of church and ministry stand in tension with one another through their great diversity. The great Catholic scholar Raymond Brown wrote the slim volume The Churches the Apostles Left Behind in an effort to capture the various images or models of the church promoted by different canonical writings. Is the church primarily a structure that passes down sound doctrine (Pastorals), a charismatic fellowship guided mostly by the workings of the Holy Spirit (Luke/Acts), or what? The remarkable (but I think not overwhelming) diversity of the biblical witness thus throws up a big question mark against any attempt to promote a univocal, normative teaching on church structure and authority. Should the church be governed congregationally, so that every member has an equal voice in decisions? Then a key text is I Corinthians 14:26. Or is the “biblical pattern” the entrusting of authority to a representative body of respected elders? You find your evidence in 1 Timothy 5:17.

Perhaps the great caveat thrown at my appeal to diversity is the apparent fact, acknowledged across the board by everyone from Baptists to Catholics, is the synonymous usage of the terms “bishop” and “elder” throughout the New Testament documents. Never does any text indicate that the bishop is an authority or leader who serves beyond the local congregation. The development of the three-fold pattern is just that: a development that solidifies sometime upon the close of the New Testament period. However, there are certain prefigurations of that pattern within the canon. Certainly, the apostles acted as translocal ministers as they planted churches, wrote letters, and visited the scattered Christian communities. Of course just noting that salient fact opens up a can of worms concerning succession in the apostolic office that I do not intend to touch. However, apostles were apparently not the only ones to whom the New Testament witnesses as offering broad oversight. In one instance, Titus 1:5, the recipient is charged by “Paul” with finishing the task of appointing elders in every town on the island of Crete. Leaving aside the question of authorship for this epistle, this nevertheless remains as a canonical witness to a ministry of personal oversight over a region. Titus' duty was to select and install congregational leaders. While the title may not be applied here, this is nevertheless a clear example, in at least one instance, of a kind of leadership that was later exclusively denoted as the office of “bishop.”


2. Baptist History and Heritage

Baptists have not been without ministers of translocal jurisdiction. The General Baptists of England, one of the two earliest Baptist associations formed in the 17th century, apparently held to a three-fold pattern of messengers, elders and deacons (Orthodox Creed, 1679, article XXXI). The messengers ordained elders (pastors) in the churches to which they had been given charge. One such messenger was Thomas Grantham, a prolific writer who wrote various treatises in defense of “the Baptized Churches.” His magnum opus is the hefty volume Christianismus Primitivus, in which he defends the theology and practice of the Baptist churches by appeal both to Scripture and Early Church Fathers. Concerning the office of messenger, he writes:

Touching the Office of Messengers or Apostles, as a perpetual Ministry to the Church....

That though it is most certain there were several things proper and peculiar to the First and Chief Apostles, not to be pretended at all by their Successors the subordinate Messengers; yet it is also true, that many things pertaining to their Office as Itinerant Ministers, are of perpetual duration in the Church with respect to that Holy Function, and consequently to descend to those who were to succeed them as Travelling Ministers, to plant Churches, and to settle those in order who are as Sheep without a Shepherd, etc. For this Office is as firmly settled in the Church, as any other, and therefore the Abrogation of this is in effect to abolish them all (Book II, Section III, Paragraph 2).

Grantham goes on to say that a peculiar obligation of messengers that is not readily accepted by pastors of churches is the ministry of proclaiming the gospel of Christ to all the world and baptizing converts.

Since his time, while Baptists have argued that episcopacy is not a biblical office, they have elected and appointed all kinds of officials who have served in positions also not outlined in Scripture but seen as conducive to the good order of the Church. Here in America, regional associations typically have an ordained minister serve as a Director of Missions to ensure cooperation between churches in ministry and service to the community. The business of the state and national conventions requires certain leadership for day-to-day operation, and so Baptists have elected ministers to serve as presidents for one-year terms and executive directors as more permanent overseers of the various denominational agencies and programs. Meanwhile, the American Baptist Churches, USA and the Baptist Union of Great Britain both employ “regional ministers” who provide pastoral support for ministers, lay training for congregation, and other theologically informed, spiritually-minded, ecclesially-focused tasks of essentially episcopal oversight. And yet, except for scattered Independent Baptists and others who have probably been more influenced by the Restorationist movement or American individualism than Baptist tradition, none of these offices have been seen as an assault on local church autonomy. Is there, then, any legitimate theological concern with an office known as “bishop”? Despite the direction my post has taken, I believe there is, but I believe there is much ecumenical promise for answering the problematic consequences of the bishopric. But I've already said much today, so I'll save the question of a Baptist appropriation of episcopacy for another time.

Labels:

I take offense at being called a Pelagian

Hey! I've got less heretical tendencies than Chris!
You scored as Chalcedon compliant. You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you're not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451.

Chalcedon compliant

100%

Pelagianism

67%

Nestorianism

67%

Modalism

33%

Monophysitism

33%

Apollanarian

25%

Arianism

0%

Adoptionist

0%

Docetism

0%

Donatism

0%

Albigensianism

0%

Monarchianism

0%

Gnosticism

0%

Socinianism

0%

Are you a heretic?
created with QuizFarm.com

Hooray! I'm Orthodox!


But I am a bit too Nestorian for my tastes....and what's with that high Pelagian score?????

You scored as Chalcedon compliant. You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you're not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451.

Chalcedon compliant


100%

Nestorianism


67%

Pelagianism


58%

Monophysitism


33%

Docetism


17%

Apollanarian


17%

Adoptionist


8%

Gnosticism


8%

Monarchianism


8%

Albigensianism


0%

Arianism


0%

Modalism


0%

Donatism


0%

Socinianism


0%

Are you a heretic?
created with QuizFarm.com